$10 to have women, $20 may change too......

[Gawdzilla]

Most American Indians didn't become citizens until 1924.  It was the late 1940s before they all became citizens.  But Indians have been on American coins.

Sac was the only one I could think of at the moment, but yea, there are Native American coins with buffalo on the back too, a few others I cant think of now.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Tubman is the first black person on USA currency.  The Confederacy had black people on its $10, $50, and $100 bills in 1861.  Of course they were slaves picking cotton and the money was worthless, more like a bond than actual currency.  The paper couldn't be redeemed until six or twelve months after a peace treaty had been signed between the USA & the CSA. Confederate currency was printed on just one side.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1862-100-BILL-CO...Sw~oFXDutG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5Puv_E94FUI/VF...%2BT-4.JPG

http://allensinc.com/coins/currency/conf...ges/29.jpg

Everyone and his brother from the CSA government to the States to the cities printed currency.  A lot of it had women on the front.

Lucy Pickens, known as the "Queen of the Confederacy", was on the CSA $100 bill of 1864. 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GY2LOV0tsS4/VE...2B1864.JPG

Maryland had a $3 bill with drawings of several fictional women on it.  http://www.deerrunmercantile.com/images/...l2451F.jpg

So in the end the racist slavers were more progressive on putting blacks and women on their money than the Unionists were, although they did it for purely propaganda reasons.

[Goosebump]

All for this, I know the change won't happen for awhile but change is change and that is progressive. I know most folks won't read this because I didn't reply to any folks. Noticing a trend on the boards in that.

I'm 100% in favor the the decision to replace the 20 and reform the 10.

Go ladies, it's way past due.

[Brian37]

Tubman is the first black person on USA currency.  The Confederacy had black people on its $10, $50, and $100 bills in 1861.  Of course they were slaves picking cotton and the money was worthless, more like a bond than actual currency.  The paper couldn't be redeemed until six or twelve months after a peace treaty had been signed between the USA & the CSA. Confederate currency was printed on just one side.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1862-100-BILL-CO...Sw~oFXDutG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5Puv_E94FUI/VF...%2BT-4.JPG

http://allensinc.com/coins/currency/conf...ges/29.jpg

Everyone and his brother from the CSA government to the States to the cities printed currency.  A lot of it had women on the front.

Lucy Pickens, known as the "Queen of the Confederacy", was on the CSA $100 bill of 1864. 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GY2LOV0tsS4/VE...2B1864.JPG

Maryland had a $3 bill with drawings of several fictional women on it.  http://www.deerrunmercantile.com/images/...l2451F.jpg

So in the end the racist slavers were more progressive on putting blacks and women on their money than the Unionists were, although they did it for purely propaganda reasons.

 They didn't put blacks on their currency in the South because they thought they were equal humans, they did it because owning another human being was a social norm to them.  The North were the progressives. Slavery had ended in the North in the majority of the North long before the Civil War.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Tubman is the first black person on USA currency.  The Confederacy had black people on its $10, $50, and $100 bills in 1861.  Of course they were slaves picking cotton and the money was worthless, more like a bond than actual currency.  The paper couldn't be redeemed until six or twelve months after a peace treaty had been signed between the USA & the CSA. Confederate currency was printed on just one side.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1862-100-BILL-CO...Sw~oFXDutG

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5Puv_E94FUI/VF...%2BT-4.JPG

http://allensinc.com/coins/currency/conf...ges/29.jpg

Everyone and his brother from the CSA government to the States to the cities printed currency.  A lot of it had women on the front.

Lucy Pickens, known as the "Queen of the Confederacy", was on the CSA $100 bill of 1864. 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GY2LOV0tsS4/VE...2B1864.JPG

Maryland had a $3 bill with drawings of several fictional women on it.  http://www.deerrunmercantile.com/images/...l2451F.jpg

So in the end the racist slavers were more progressive on putting blacks and women on their money than the Unionists were, although they did it for purely propaganda reasons.

 They didn't put blacks on their currency in the South because they thought they were equal humans, they did it because owning another human being was a social norm to them.  The North were the progressives. Slavery had ended in the North in the majority of the North long before the Civil War.

As i clearly stated, the Confederates put slaves on the money early in the war as a propaganda move to show the whites that slavery was intact and that things were normal at home so that they could go get killed fighting the Union troops.  Later on the Confederates passed the "Twenty Negro Law" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Negro_Law  so that one white guy was exempted from the draft for every 20 slaves.  After that they dropped the slaves' images off the CSA currency.  

So although the Confederates used black people as images on their currency as propaganda and to show how wonderful slavery was the Union covered its currency with pictures of rich slavers (Washington, Jefferson, Jackson) for tens of decades.  The CSA also used a real live white woman on its currency whereas the USA has fought tooth and nail against putting any woman on its currency. 

As a side note the CSA wanted more black people in the country and the North wanted to deport all of them.  It's a complicated issue.

[Brian37]

 They didn't put blacks on their currency in the South because they thought they were equal humans, they did it because owning another human being was a social norm to them.  The North were the progressives. Slavery had ended in the North in the majority of the North long before the Civil War.

As i clearly stated, the Confederates put slaves on the money early in the war as a propaganda move to show the whites that slavery was intact and that things were normal at home so that they could go get killed fighting the Union troops.  Later on the Confederates passed the "Twenty Negro Law" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Negro_Law  so that one white guy was exempted from the draft for every 20 slaves.  After that they dropped the slaves' images off the CSA currency.  

So although the Confederates used black people as images on their currency as propaganda and to show how wonderful slavery was the Union covered its currency with pictures of rich slavers (Washington, Jefferson, Jackson) for tens of decades.  The CSA also used a real live white woman on its currency whereas the USA has fought tooth and nail against putting any woman on its currency. 

As a side note the CSA wanted more black people in the country and the North wanted to deport all of them.  It's a complicated issue.

Yea but you said the South were more progressive because of that.... Or you made it sound like that. No, not even as propaganda does that make them more progressive. They still thought owning other humans was ok, there is no way you can call propaganda progression.

[Brian37]

William Whipple one of the signers of the Constitution saw the hypocrisy of slave ownership when talking about "all men are created equal".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Whipple

[Brian37]

It is flat out wrong for the Michele Bachmann to say the founders ended slavery, the Civil War did. What is dishonest about what she did, wasn't that she was totally wrong in making that claim, but when Republicans get called out on bigotry, they try to give the image of the party being pluralistic by pulling this bullshit.

Now the truth of slavery in the North, not with all the founders, but a few of them DID in private see the problem with it but publicly tolerated it for political expediences. Slavery was mostly gone in the North by the time Jefferson died and even he freed Sally and Her kids along with Whipple.

Real Abolition beyond mere deportation DID exist, in a very small degree, and because of the way the Founders Wrote the Constitution, I do think they knew eventually in the future that blacks would in turn use it to fight for their own rights.

But yea, even with no slavery mostly in the North yes, bigotry still existed and life for blacks certainly was miserable in both the North and South, but there were real progressives even at the time of the Revolution, but even those few wouldn't have been able to go all out all at once with that platform.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

It is flat out wrong for the Michele Bachmann to say the founders ended slavery, the Civil War did. What is dishonest about what she did, wasn't that she was totally wrong in making that claim, but when Republicans get called out on bigotry, they try to give the image of the party being pluralistic by pulling this bullshit.

Now the truth of slavery in the North, not with all the founders, but a few of them DID in private see the problem with it but publicly tolerated it for political expediences. Slavery was mostly gone in the North by the time Jefferson died and even he freed Sally and Her kids along with Whipple.

Real Abolition beyond mere deportation DID exist, in a very small degree, and because of the way the Founders Wrote the Constitution, I do think they knew eventually in the future that blacks would in turn use it to fight for their own rights.

But yea, even with no slavery mostly in the North yes, bigotry still existed and life for blacks certainly was miserable in both the North and South, but there were real progressives even at the time of the Revolution, but even those few wouldn't have been able to go all out all at once with that platform.

The Revolutionary War was fought to maintain slavery in the colonies.  England was on the verge of ending slavery in England and in its colonies.  The rich slavers such as Washington and Jefferson wanted to retain slavery so they joined with the Northern malcontents to rebel against England.  They were successful and sold the lie that they were fighting for freedom and democracy.  But the English were also successful.  They spent a fortune ending the transatlantic slave trade.  in the mid 19th Century the Southerners wanted to expand slavery and import more slaves.  The Northerners wanted to deport all of the black people and didn't want any more in the country.  So there was a second war over slavery.   

But regardless, the CSA did in fact put black people and women on its currency while the USA resisted it for 155 years after the CSA had done it for purely propaganda reasons.  The USA didn't want to do it for any reason.

[Brian37]

It is flat out wrong for the Michele Bachmann to say the founders ended slavery, the Civil War did. What is dishonest about what she did, wasn't that she was totally wrong in making that claim, but when Republicans get called out on bigotry, they try to give the image of the party being pluralistic by pulling this bullshit.

Now the truth of slavery in the North, not with all the founders, but a few of them DID in private see the problem with it but publicly tolerated it for political expediences. Slavery was mostly gone in the North by the time Jefferson died and even he freed Sally and Her kids along with Whipple.

Real Abolition beyond mere deportation DID exist, in a very small degree, and because of the way the Founders Wrote the Constitution, I do think they knew eventually in the future that blacks would in turn use it to fight for their own rights.

But yea, even with no slavery mostly in the North yes, bigotry still existed and life for blacks certainly was miserable in both the North and South, but there were real progressives even at the time of the Revolution, but even those few wouldn't have been able to go all out all at once with that platform.

The Revolutionary War was fought to maintain slavery in the colonies.  England was on the verge of ending slavery in England and in its colonies.  The rich slavers such as Washington and Jefferson wanted to retain slavery so they joined with the Northern malcontents to rebel against England.  They were successful and sold the lie that they were fighting for freedom and democracy.  But the English were also successful.  They spent a fortune ending the transatlantic slave trade.  in the mid 19th Century the Southerners wanted to expand slavery and import more slaves.  The Northerners wanted to deport all of the black people and didn't want any more in the country.  So there was a second war over slavery.   

But regardless, the CSA did in fact put black people and women on its currency while the USA resisted it for 155 years after the CSA had done it for purely propaganda reasons.  The USA didn't want to do it for any reason.

Once again, so what? What the CSA still did NOT do it because they thought blacks were equal. And again, I gave you that link to Whipple who DID see the hypocrisy of slave ownership. AND AGAIN the founders did own slaves but as I said a few of them DID say in private it was bad, but publicly they knew they could not gain support if they ran on the platform of ending it back then. 

Skip slavery for a second. Fast forward to today. Even on other social issues politicians in both parties say one thing and do another, such as what happened with gays over the past 20 years. I can tell you democrats lead that charge long ago, even as far back as the 70s. But because of the overall climate the push for marriage equality took forever even though many politicians. Even Reagan didn't give a shit as his daughter has said. 

But you are NOT going to get away as painting the South as being anything close to heros for blacks anymore than today's GOP can be called heros to gays just because even in red states gay marriage is legal now.

And yes it does SUCK that it has taken so long to get a black woman on currency, but now in this context it will not be because anyone values slavery, but because we value what she did to save people from slavery.